Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lecture 2
Lecture 2
Applicable Law
9 Parts
44 Chapters
444 Sections
The principle legislation which provides the basis/framework for the criminal process is the
Criminal Procedure Code (CPC)
Section 3 : Trial of Offences under Penal Code & other laws.
Karpal Singh & Anor v PP [1991] 2 MLJ 544
Q : Can go beyond CPC and apply English Law?
There is no CPC in England. CPC – exhaustive but not comprehensive
Section 5 of the code is inactive.
The CPC was intended to be an exhaustive pronouncement of the criminal procedure.
But it cannot be said to be comprehensive.
Thus, where a lacuna in the law in Malaysia exists, English criminal procedure law shall be
applied so far as the same shall not conflict or be in consistent with the CPC and can be auxillary
thereto.
s 5 CPC
Karpal Singh & Anor v PP [1991] 2 MLJ 544
Re Kah Wai Video (Ipoh) Sdn Bhd [1987] 2 MLJ 459
Warrant
Search - list of things to be search and seize
The CPC was first introduced in 1927 in the former Federated Malay States to govern
criminal procedure [FMS Cap 6].
But from 10 January 1976, it applied throughout Malaysia.
It was revised in 1999 as Act 593 which superceded the FMS Cap 6.
The CPC has been the subject of amendment throughout the years, more so in the last decade.
‘Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code: Radical or Piecemeal Legislation?’ [2007] 7 MLJA
53
What is a crime?
Having identified that the criminal process is part of the State response to crime, what then
constitutes a crime?
Crime is –
“a social harm that the law makes punishable; the breach of a legal duty treated as the subject
matter of a criminal proceeding.”
Black’s Law Dictionary
“an unlawful act or default which is an offence against the public and renders the person guilty of the
act or default liable to legal punishment.”
Halsbury’s Laws of England
Offence
Curiously, the word “crime” is not used and defined in the Malaysian statutes.
The word used and defined is “offence”.
s 40 Penal Code (Revised 1957) (Act 574) [PC]
s 2(1) CPC
An offence is further distinguished by the CPC as:
“seizable offence” and “non-seizable offence”;
“bailable” and “non-bailable”
The CPC also differentiates between “summons case” and “warrant case”.
Accused is entitled to be Accused may not be released Accused is not allowed bail.
released on bail. on bail.
The right of the accused to The accused has no right to be The court has no discretion
be released on bail. released on bail. Nonetheless, to grant bail.
the person accused of a non-
bailable offence may be
released on bail, subject to
the court’s discretion.
Summons cases relate to offences punishable Warrant cases relate to offences punishable
with less than 6 months imprisonment. with imprisonment exceeding 6 months & the
death sentence.
The complainant can withdraw the case with Such a withdrawal is not allowed except in
the permission of the court. the case of compoundable offences.
Do we have new Criminal Procedure Code?
By Abu Daud Abdul Rahman, Member, Criminal Law Committee
Hierarchy of courts
-------------------------------------------------------
Superior Courts
Federal Court
Special
Court of Appeal Courts
Jurisdiction
A court of law is an institution empowered with the authority to determine finally any dispute
properly brought before it in a manner that will bind the parties to the dispute.
The term used to describe that authority is “jurisdiction”.
“Jurisdiction” literally means the “pronouncing of the law”
However, this is far from exhaustive. Understandably so, because the term has many
different shades of meaning.
Most generally, the term is used to describe the authority and power of the courts to
adjudicate disputes and to ward and enforce its pronouncement.
Thus, the phrase “inherent jurisdiction” has been used to describe the inherent powers of the
court to protect its own processes, including –
the punishment of people for contempt of court; and
to strike out and dismiss proceedings as an abuse of court process.
However, the distinction between the two words is a critical one.
And the courts have recognised the distinction between the two.
Lee Lee Cheng v Seow Peng Kwang [1960] MLJ 1
Abdul Ghaffar bin Md Amin v Ibrahim bin Yusoff & Anor [2008] 3 MLJ 771
Munawar Ahmad Anees v PP [2009] 2 MLJ 1
Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v PP [2011] 1 MLJ 158
Magistrates’ Court
S 76 SCA
S 88 SCA
S 117(2) CPC
S 89 SCA
s 85 SCA
s 83 SCA
s 9 CPC
s 30(1) CJA
S 87(1) SCA
First exception Second exception
S 118 Customs Act 1967 S 87(2) SCA
S 41 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 PP v Tengku Hitam [1962] MLJ 414
S 6(3) Betting Act 1953 Abdul Wahab v PP [1970] 2 MLJ 203
Cheong Ah Cheow v PP [1985] 2 MLJ 257 PP v Govindnan a/l Chinden Nair [1998] 2 MLJ 181
PP v Yap Sin Peng [1986] 2 MLJ 66 Nadarajah v PP [2000] 4 MLJ 373
Sessions Court
S 59 SCA
Taman Rimba (Mentakab) Sdn Bhd v Sin Yew Poh Tractor Works [2002] 5 MLJ 321
S 63 SCA
S 64 SCA
Tuan Mat b Tuan Lonik
S 288(5) CPC
Nadarajah v PP [2000] 4 MLJ 373
High Court
Art 121 FC
S 3 CJA
S 22 CJA
Datuk Haji Wasli bin Mohd Said v PP [2006] 5 MLJ 172
Local jurisdiction
Tengku Abdul Muiz Shah & Ors v PP [1983] 1 MLJ 422
Lt Kdr Balakrishnan v Menteri Pertahanan Malaysia [1994] 2 AMR 1045
Sova Sdn Bhd v Kasih Sayang Realty Sdn Bhd [1988] 2 MLJ 268